Larger Works in MPL

W. Yip weng at yours.com
Tue Apr 18 16:05:38 UTC 2000


Thanks for the comments.

My objective, as an undergraduate writing a dissertation on this subject,
is to critically analyse the licenses. 

I noticed that the MPL separates the 'initial developer' from the
'contributor'. It does so in a much clearer way, and certainly makes things
more explicit as contrasted with the GPL's 'original licensor' and
'licensee' - a dyad which does not convey the meaning of contribution to
source base.

However, this 'initial developer/contributor' separation does make me beg
the question I asked before in an earlier thread last week regarding
"concurrent licensing".

Is s.2.2 MPL [1] inconsistent with copyright law? I ask this because under
copyright law the INITIAL DEVELOPER owns copyright to both Original Code
and Covered Code under the MPL (where Covered Code = Original Code +
Modifications). A CONTRIBUTOR who merely makes modifications to the
Original Code may be regarded as making a derivative work (or in UK
'adaptation'), but surely copyright law says that a contributor does not
own the copyright to derivatives/modifications he authors? Why then does
the MPL in s.2.2 make express provision that a contributor grants a license
to his modifications when it seems to me that under copyright law such
contributor does not own the copyright to his modifications? This seems
even more otiose when we see in s.2.1 that the initial developer has
already granted the license, and further, it is the initial developer who
owns copyright of the ENTIRE covered code (original code + modifications)? 

So are there concurrent licenses at work?

Mon, 17 Apr 2000 15:01:02 -0400, "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M."
<rod at cyberspaces.org> wrote:
>This is a difficult question to answer. The term "larger work" has no
>copyright significance. The options you note seem correct, but using a
>single license for covered code and your own code will require a skillfully
>written license to avoid potential difficulties. You may be up to the task,
>but an easier way is to use both licenses. Of course, the licenses must be
>consistent; otherwise,  the end user or licensee may not be able to make
>lawful use of your program. The issue really is what are you trying to
>accomplish by using a single or a separate license. Set up your goal first
>and then it may be more apparent which choice is better.




More information about the License-discuss mailing list